Prove there's a god.

Since: May 11

Ashford, UK

#642246 Jul 17, 2013
markogomess wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=8YmOGJ8tDV g …… D.U.M.A Defended Unaccepted Marriage Act proves Gods a farth
a farth?

I have known several people in my life who ave been afflicted with an impediment of speech...none of them transferred it to text.....

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#642247 Jul 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, that is not what I am saying we should do. I think we should require treatment for abusers, and offer comprehensive and widely available harm reduction services. I think that help should be easily available.
I said perhaps it wasn't false, because you had such a hard time understanding it in the first place; additionally, you always whine about people insulting you but have no issue with doling out insults of your own.
Yes, the costs are offset by rehab - read my post, and read the link your originally posted for me a while ago. You conveniently left out the part about rehab offering a 3 dollar reduction for every dollar spent.
You call rehab a waste when it offers a chance at rehabilitation, is cheaper, and more effective, but you have no issues with a drug war that has done *nothing* over 30 years and after billions of dollars wasted?
Your opposition to treatment is a purely emotional one. You want to see them punished. Your ignorant claim that drug abuse is not a disease reveals this fact. I thought you were in medicine? Shouldn't you be up to date on how the mind of an addict works and how the mind of a future abuser differs from the mind of a recreational user?(reward pathways, neurotransmitter deficiencies/imbalances, etc).
Harm reduction services that are easily available...let's see...how about JAIL. last time I checked we're pampering the crap out of them in jail with TV, Internet, gyms, you name it. they also have access to drug rehab in jail...GET REAL...you act as if we're placing them in jail, hanging them by their toes and torturing them. we all know that isn't the case.

NO...I never had a hard time understanding...I only read the post once and I simply misunderstood your "dichotomy" which was completely unnecessary in the first place. As for insults...I don't whine about insults...but I will point it out when someone chooses to personally attack me rather than just answering a question. I don't get offended by the insults...because frankly, the opinion of me, from the people who post on here, doesn't change who I am. I'm fairly certain than when someone spends the majority of their time calling me stupid, it says more about them than it does it me. And last time I checked...it's a rare occasion you'll see me calling people names...

I didn't conveniently leave anything out...I posted the stats I was discussing at the moment and posted the entire link for you to read. as for the rehab offsetting costs... Yes...it would if it actually worked...stats show it usually doesn't and that over half relapse around 3 times. now do the math...if it's a 3 dollar reduction for every dollar spent and you have to send them to rehab 3 times...lets see...Uhm..I think that's no reduction at all.

I didn't call rehab a waste of time...just a waste of tax payers money. Big difference. if the abusers can find the money to buy drugs...let them find the money to pay for rehab...why should we foot the bill? I wouldn't mind paying once...after that...it should be 100% their own responsibility. And I never said I had no issue with the drug war. Just said I don't think the government should provide them a monthly check, give them foods stamps, and pay for rehab...we're enabling them...not helping them.

I know medicine very well and I assure you...drug abuse is not a disease...I dont care what the nut job psychiatrists say. You don't choose to get diabetes, cancer, and congestive heart failure...you choose to take drugs. Certainly life choices can put you at risk for getting diseases, but you can also get them regardless of your choices. You can't be a drug addict unless you do drugs.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642248 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a real life. You are running out of time.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that like:
"please go into the other room and practice falling down, I'll be there in a minute."
:o)
I'm still trying to get the association between those two things.

More like getting life experience from living it instead of reading about it.

He needs to have some guy who thought he was a racist pig punching him on a sidewalk.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642249 Jul 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
a farth?
I have known several people in my life who ave been afflicted with an impediment of speech...none of them transferred it to text.....
ave an idea we just saw two of them.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#642250 Jul 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
Note - the above argument is mostly based on cost. We haven't even gotten into the morality of locking people up for committing a vice and falling victim to a disease.
Strange that most modern countries are moving away from prohibition, eh?
NOTE: If your vice is against the law...accept the consequences when you get caught...or get a new vice. Better yet...get responsible and get rid of the vice altogether....gee..I wonder why you never see that as an option???

Fall victim to disease...give me a break. drug abusers are not victims of a disease for God's sake. Don't take drugs and you can never be addicted. Addiction is not genetic, viral, bacterial, or age related...it makes me absolutely livid to hear people say such a thing. I certainly hope you never fall victim to a REAL disease and find yourself unable to pay for or receive assistance for the necessary treatment while the government is fully supporting the drug abuser next door. Unfortunately, I see people in this shape everyday...clearly you do not.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642251 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
OJ was lynched by the media, I didn't think he was guilty from the evidence. Neither did the jury.
He had plenty of money to have had the job done by someone else.
Yeah you're right. The fact that blood, footprints, fibers, bloody gloves, bloody socks, and his bloody car all linked him to the crime, as well as the fact that he tried to run off with a disguise and a bunch of money, are typically signs of innocence.

Literally the only other explanation is that his son did it, or there existed some massive, wide reaching conspiracy to get him for murder.

The prosecution was a travesty.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642252 Jul 17, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
The audio tape and time lapse indicate otherwise. Zimmerman stopped chasing Martin after dispatch advised against it. Martin made the fateful decision to assault Zimmerman after the incident had ended. He was on top and doing the pummeling. We'll never know why Martin didn't just continue on his way.
The fact that there was a time lapse does not necessarily indicate that martin sought him out and attacked him. It means there was a time lapse. After the time lapse, either one could have sought the other out. The fact is, zimmerman got out of his car and pursued him, which probably set off alarms in martin's head. Why wouldn't he get a little concerned and confrontational?

We don't know who was on top. One witness says zimmerman was, and another says martin was. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway, so I tend to take that stuff with a grain of salt. I prefer to look at the physical evidence. Does zimmerman show signs of taking a beating of the magnitude that he described? Absolutely not. He had a few scratches. And since he's the one facing the charge, his testimony all the more suspect.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642253 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I really didn't follow it much. Was disgusted with the media circus. Just seemed too circumstantial from what I did read and the media had him on the run.
I wouldn't trust police, judges, or politicians in California for anything.
You should really look into it, he was obviously guilty. Dude couldn't have committed a sloppier murder if he tried.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642254 Jul 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that there was a time lapse does not necessarily indicate that martin sought him out and attacked him. It means there was a time lapse. After the time lapse, either one could have sought the other out. The fact is, zimmerman got out of his car and pursued him, which probably set off alarms in martin's head. Why wouldn't he get a little concerned and confrontational?
We don't know who was on top. One witness says zimmerman was, and another says martin was. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway, so I tend to take that stuff with a grain of salt. I prefer to look at the physical evidence. Does zimmerman show signs of taking a beating of the magnitude that he described? Absolutely not. He had a few scratches. And since he's the one facing the charge, his testimony all the more suspect.
There is a difference between pursue and keeping an eye on. You keep using the word pursue.

Nothing will change your mind until the media tells you to.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642255 Jul 17, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Harm reduction services that are easily available...let's see...how about JAIL. last time I checked we're pampering the crap out of them in jail with TV, Internet, gyms, you name it. they also have access to drug rehab in jail...GET REAL...you act as if we're placing them in jail, hanging them by their toes and torturing them. we all know that isn't the case.
NO...I never had a hard time understanding...I only read the post once and I simply misunderstood your "dichotomy" which was completely unnecessary in the first place. As for insults...I don't whine about insults...but I will point it out when someone chooses to personally attack me rather than just answering a question. I don't get offended by the insults...because frankly, the opinion of me, from the people who post on here, doesn't change who I am. I'm fairly certain than when someone spends the majority of their time calling me stupid, it says more about them than it does it me. And last time I checked...it's a rare occasion you'll see me calling people names...
I didn't conveniently leave anything out...I posted the stats I was discussing at the moment and posted the entire link for you to read. as for the rehab offsetting costs... Yes...it would if it actually worked...stats show it usually doesn't and that over half relapse around 3 times. now do the math...if it's a 3 dollar reduction for every dollar spent and you have to send them to rehab 3 times...lets see...Uhm..I think that's no reduction at all.
I didn't call rehab a waste of time...just a waste of tax payers money. Big difference. if the abusers can find the money to buy drugs...let them find the money to pay for rehab...why should we foot the bill? I wouldn't mind paying once...after that...it should be 100% their own responsibility. And I never said I had no issue with the drug war. Just said I don't think the government should provide them a monthly check, give them foods stamps, and pay for rehab...we're enabling them...not helping them.
I know medicine very well and I assure you...drug abuse is not a disease...I dont care what the nut job psychiatrists say. You don't choose to get diabetes, cancer, and congestive heart failure...you choose to take drugs. Certainly life choices can put you at risk for getting diseases, but you can also get them regardless of your choices. You can't be a drug addict unless you do drugs.
Jail is not harm reduction.

You had quite the hard time understanding, and you are a hypocrite.

You did leave it out, or you missed it, as it *directly* contradicted your argument. So either you were being dishonest and were hoping I wouldn't read the link, or you didn't understand how damaging that link was to your argument.

Stats show what about rehab? Do you think they pulled that figure out of their a$$? It's based on stats. Also, it's based on rehab in general, not "1 bout of rehab equals 3 dollars off." It's "rehab in general saves 3 dollars for every dollar spent on rehab."

So you're cool paying for the drug war, but not for the cheaper, more effective, more humane option. Why is that?

Ok.. I don't care what those wacko doctors with their fancy degrees say, cancer is not a disease.

See how dumb that sounds? Defer to the experts. If they say it's a disease, it probably is. If you really knew anything about how the brain functions, you would know that it very much is a mental illness no different from any other mental illness.

Do you think we should lock up anorexic people for not eating? After all, they "choose" not to eat, so clearly it's their decision. They cost society money too, those damned criminals.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642256 Jul 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that there was a time lapse does not necessarily indicate that martin sought him out and attacked him. It means there was a time lapse. After the time lapse, either one could have sought the other out. The fact is, zimmerman got out of his car and pursued him, which probably set off alarms in martin's head. Why wouldn't he get a little concerned and confrontational?
We don't know who was on top. One witness says zimmerman was, and another says martin was. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway, so I tend to take that stuff with a grain of salt. I prefer to look at the physical evidence. Does zimmerman show signs of taking a beating of the magnitude that he described? Absolutely not. He had a few scratches. And since he's the one facing the charge, his testimony all the more suspect.
Timmy, when you are on the ground getting punched by a total stranger you really don't keep an accurate count of punches. You tend to get scared and fear for your life. Particularly if you have a gun in your waist they can grab very easily. That simple.

It wasn't a case of grab ass.

Ask cops about their fear of their guns being exposed for bystanders to grab.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642257 Jul 17, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
NOTE: If your vice is against the law...accept the consequences when you get caught...or get a new vice. Better yet...get responsible and get rid of the vice altogether....gee..I wonder why you never see that as an option???
Fall victim to disease...give me a break. drug abusers are not victims of a disease for God's sake. Don't take drugs and you can never be addicted. Addiction is not genetic, viral, bacterial, or age related...it makes me absolutely livid to hear people say such a thing. I certainly hope you never fall victim to a REAL disease and find yourself unable to pay for or receive assistance for the necessary treatment while the government is fully supporting the drug abuser next door. Unfortunately, I see people in this shape everyday...clearly you do not.
Vices, by definition, cannot be criminal acts. Learn. Please.

Yeah. That's true. Don't take drugs and you can't get addicted. That doesn't change the fact that certain people are predisposed to addiction in many ways. Some people have a deficiency of serotonin, which makes them want to thrill seek to correct the imbalance, which sometimes leads them to drugs. Some people have emotional problems that lead to drugs. Some people have mental problems that lead to drugs. Some people are born into drug use in terrible environments. And after the drug use begins, the reward system is rewired, which effectively removes the addict's choice in the matter.

And yes, certain people can be genetically predisposed to addiction.

The thing is, drug use is usually comorbid with other factors - and many times drug users are self medicating. It's not so simple as "they were stupid and got high, and now they're an addict." You need to take a more nuanced view of these things.

You're a real nice christian though. Really following the words of jesus.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642258 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between pursue and keeping an eye on. You keep using the word pursue.
Nothing will change your mind until the media tells you to.
Remember dave, the only reason people disagree with you is because they are brainwashed sheeple who can't understand the glory of the magnet.

He totally was pursing him. Keeping an eye on would be watching him from his car, and maybe, maybe driving past him once or twice. Pursuing is following him in his car and exiting his car to find him. You and I both know he wasn't "looking for an address."

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642259 Jul 17, 2013
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/17/zimme...

Timmy, why didn't she say that on the stand?

Because.

To take "shortcuts" in a residential area usually involves cutting through peoples yards, between houses, and a certain knowledge for where they are. Do you think he had a map handy?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642260 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Timmy, when you are on the ground getting punched by a total stranger you really don't keep an accurate count of punches. You tend to get scared and fear for your life. Particularly if you have a gun in your waist they can grab very easily. That simple.
It wasn't a case of grab ass.
Ask cops about their fear of their guns being exposed for bystanders to grab.
So you honestly think that he was mistook one or two punches, at the most, for 30, and he genuinely imagined getting his head slammed into the ground ten times? Or do you think he made it up once he realized he was in trouble and he needed a "self defense" excuse?

And really, don't give me that nonsense about him fearing for his life. He had a gun, he was the bigger man, and he had a small amount of mma training, which I admit isn't really that significant as street fights aren't much like professional ones. Still, he was the superior opponent on paper in every way. Why not pull the gun and use it to warn him off? You can't honestly tell me that one punch struck him with such mortal fear that he wasn't in control of his actions.

Also, maybe he shouldn't have been, I dunno, stalking an unarmed child at night with a gun in his pants? What kind of nutso world do I live in where an adult with a gun can stalk a child, kill him, and then get off on self defense based on a couple scratches?

I really want you to imagine this case if martin was white or a female. It would be laughable. "You see, sir, I was tracking this young white man while carrying a concealed firearm for the common good!"

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642261 Jul 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Remember dave, the only reason people disagree with you is because they are brainwashed sheeple who can't understand the glory of the magnet.
He totally was pursing him. Keeping an eye on would be watching him from his car, and maybe, maybe driving past him once or twice. Pursuing is following him in his car and exiting his car to find him. You and I both know he wasn't "looking for an address."
Pursue is to follow to capture or attack. You were describing surveillance. Security people do those things.

You aren't very street smart.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642262 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Pursue is to follow to capture or attack. You were describing surveillance. Security people do those things.
You aren't very street smart.
He was not a security guard. He was neighborhood watch. His job, his only job, is to passively observe and report suspicious activity. He is not to pursue, follow, or intervene in any way. Technically, there was nothing illegal about him stalking martin through the neighborhood, but it was a clearly suspect action that invited the confrontation he clearly wanted.

Also, as a bonus, zimmerman was not a member of any officially recognized neighborhood watch organization, he was a wannabe vigilante.

What in the world does this have to do with street smarts, mr. king of the hood? Mr. "I know what it's like to be in a fight but have no idea what happens to a fist after it throws 30 punches into bone."

Goodness, you are a poser.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642263 Jul 17, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>He was not a security guard. He was neighborhood watch. His job, his only job, is to passively observe and report suspicious activity. He is not to pursue, follow, or intervene in any way. Technically, there was nothing illegal about him stalking martin through the neighborhood, but it was a clearly suspect action that invited the confrontation he clearly wanted.
Also, as a bonus, zimmerman was not a member of any officially recognized neighborhood watch organization, he was a wannabe vigilante.
What in the world does this have to do with street smarts, mr. king of the hood? Mr. "I know what it's like to be in a fight but have no idea what happens to a fist after it throws 30 punches into bone."
Goodness, you are a poser.
You display very little knowledge of reality.

You want Zimmerman to be guilty, so you will make up the stupidest arguments in support of that belief.

Rant on by yourself.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#642264 Jul 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You display very little knowledge of reality.
You want Zimmerman to be guilty, so you will make up the stupidest arguments in support of that belief.
Rant on by yourself.
No, I don't. He is guilty. No matter the colors involved, if an adult stalks an unarmed child through a neighborhood at night, confronts him, kills him, and then comes out of the ordeal claiming self defense based on a scratch, they did something wrong.

What argument did I make that was stupid? It's quite clear no beating took place that night, if that's what your referring to.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#642266 Jul 17, 2013
The trial is over, move along people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 16 min Clearwater 87,945
Yanbu Gays (May '15) 17 min octafus 19
Weed Dundee Scotland (Mar '16) 35 min Randyballs 4
Blacks need to be deported NOW! (Oct '10) 37 min Johnny 198
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min God Is Dead 619,172
Forbidden sex 49 min sinaa158 8
Ladies what's your size preference 51 min sinaa158 9
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 665,182
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Pegasus 284,497
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 6 hr Devil number 666 466
The Future of Politics in America Sat Insults Are Easier 176
More from around the web